Augustus John Cuthbert Hare.

The Central law journal, Volume 28 online

. (page 31 of 151)
Online LibraryAugustus John Cuthbert HareThe Central law journal, Volume 28 → online text (page 31 of 151)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


on the petition of the latter, whether he be
plaintiff or defendant, filed at any time be-
fore the trial or final hearing of the suit ; if
before or at the time of filing said petition he
makes and files in said State court an affida-
vit stating that he has reason to believe and
does believe that, from prejudice or local in-
fluence, he will not be able to obtain justice
in such State court."

The second section of the act of 1887 pro-
vides, ''that where a suit is now pending or
may be hereafter brought in any State court

7 Gold Wasliing Go. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 189. It is not
sufficient to present the petition and bond to the
clerk, who is the court's mere ministerial officer.
Shedd V. Fuller, 36 Fed. Rep, 609.

» 4 Cent. L. J. 280.



in which there is a controversy between a
citizen of *the State in which the suit is
brought, and a citizen of another State, any
defendant being such citizen of another State
may remove such suit into the circuit court
of the United States for the proper district,
at any time before the trial thereof, when it
should be made to appear to said circuit
court that, from prejudice or local infiuence,
he will not be able to obtain justice in such
State court, or in any other State court to
which the defendant may under the laws of
the State have the right, on account of such
prejudice or local influence, to remove said
cause, etc. ; and when a cause has been re-
moved on the affidavit of any party plaintiff
that he had reason to believe and did believe
that, from prejudice or local infiuence, he
was unable to obtain justice in said State
court, the circuit court shall, on application
of the other party, examine into the truth of
said affidavit and the grounds thereof," etc.
It is apparent that the third subdivision of
§ 639 of the revised statutes was materially
modified by the act of 1887. Some contro-
versy has arisen as to the mode in which it
shall be made to appear in said circuit court
that, from prejudice or local infiuence, he
(the defendant) will not be able to obtain
justice in said State court, etc. In Hills v.
Rich. <& D. R. Co.,' it was held that an affi-
davit of the defendant, stating in substance
what was required under the third subdivi-
sion of § 639, and in addition 'Hhat he will
not be able to obtain justice in any other
State court to which the defendant under the
laws of the State had the right under the laws
of said State to remove said cause, was suffi-
cient. Substantially the same ruling was
made by Judge Deady in Fisk v. Henarie,^®
and Judge Jackson in Whelan v. N. Y.,L. E.
& W. R. Co.^i In Short v. C, M. & St. P.
Ry. Ck>.,^^ Judge Brewer says, *'all that is
required is that it shall be made to appear to
the circuit court that, from prejudice or local
influence, the party will not be able to obtain
justice in such State court, and this showing
may be made by affidavit ; and if this con-
tains a specific averment, while it may
not be conclusive, it is prima facie



»88Fed. Kep.81.
i0 35Fed. Bep. 281.
11 35 Fed. Rep. 849.
u 34 Fed. Rep. 227.



Digitized by



Google



112



THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL.



No. 5



evidence of the fact and throws the case into
this coart, leaving the other party to chal-
lenge its truth/' In that case, the affidavit
was made under the act of 1867, and the
Judge said, '4t is no affidavit at all."

In Malone v. Rich. & D. R. Co.,^ Mr.
Justice Harlan says: ^^I think it competent
for the circuit court to receive evidence upon
the point by affidavits, or by depositions, or
by means of an oral examination of witnesses
in its presence." The want of uniformity in
the decisions in this regard is a matter of
regret, but in no case, so far as the writer is
aware, has it been held thai an affidavit of .a
defendant, stating in positive terms ^^that,
from prejudice or local influence, he will not
be able to obtain justice in such State court,
or in any other State court to which the de-
fendant under the laws of the State may have
the right, on aocount of such prejudice or
local influence, to remove said cause," when
flled in the State court with the petition for
removal, and a certifled copy thereof filed in
the United States circuit court was insuffi-
cient on the face of the papers to authorize a
removal of the cause. This, therefore, would
seem to be the proper procedure.

4th. The mode in which prejudice and
local influence shall be made to appear to the
circuit court is not prescribed in the act. In
Short V. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.," Judge
Brewer, after stating that a cause may be re-
moved upon the filing of an affidavit in the
State court, ^ ^alleging in plain and unequivo-
cal terms that such local prejudice does exist,
and that a fair trial cannot be had," says:
^ 'After the affidavit has been presented and a
removal ordered, the party opposing it may
come in and traverse the allegation of preju-
dice the same as any other averment of fact,
and this need not be done by a plea of
abatement." ^*

The ordinary mode challenging the truth
of the grounds upon which a canse has been
removed is by a plea in abatement, and there

IS 85 Fed. Rep. 628-9.

M 84 Fed. Rep. 228.

^ Id County Court v. B. & O. R. Co., 85 Fed. Rep.
106, it was held that a plea in writingr 'Hhat it ia not
true that the Baltimore & Ohio Company has reason
to believe, and does believe, that from prejudice and
local influence it will not he able to obtain justice in
the circuit court ot Taylor county, or in any other
State court," was insufficient, as it merely denied the
existence of a belief, and not the fact of prejudice or
local influence.



would seem to be no good reason why this
procedure should not be followed where the
removal was had on the ground of prejudice
or local influence. The fact that no proce-
dure is provided in the act tends to show that
congress intended the former procedure to
continue in force. There is another fact
which seems to have escaped attention, and
that is that the act of 1887 is not one (en-
larging the powers of the United States cir-
cuit courts. In other words, it is not a re-
medial act conferring new authority upoi^
such courts, but was intended to restrict and
limit the jurisdiction. Thus, the matter in
controversy must exceed $2,000 in value, and
the right of removal is restricted to defend-
ants being non-residents of the State, etc.,
while the act of 1867 is so far modified thai
the right of removal for prejudice or local
influence depends not on the belief of the
party making the oath, but on the actual facts-
that such prejudice or local influence doe»
exist in such a degree as to prevent a fair
trial. This question involves the construc-
tion of the statutes of the State, granting a
change of venue. Suppose the State statute
authorizes a change of venue in any case
where it is made to appear that a fair and
impartial trial cannot be had in the county
where the action is pending, and the court ia
authorized to change the place of trial to
some adjoining county where the objectiona
do not exist, or if the objections apply to all
the counties of that judicial district, then to
some county in an adjoining district where
the objections do not apply. To warrant a
change of venue, it is not sufficient to show
that one of the parties has a number of ene-
mies in that county who are prejudiced
against him, if there is no general bias or
prejudice against him, so as to affect a jury.
In other words, if a fair and impartial jury
can be impanneled, and a fair trial had in
the county where the action is pending, the
place of trial will not be changed.^* To war-
rant the United States circuit court in retain-
ing a cause against the objection of the ad-
verse party, therefore, it must be made to>

i« In Southworth v. Beid, 86 Fed. Rep. 454, Bunn,
J., in remanding a case said: '*I apprehend that in
this State (Wisconsin) it would rarely happen that a
proper case tor removal would be made under thls-
law.'' He also said that where **no case tor removal
has been shown to exist, the court cannot take Juris-
iction by consent ot the parties."



Digitized by



Google



ToL. 28.



THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL.



113



appear that in no State court to which a cause
may be removed by a change of venue can a
fair and impartial trial be had. The right of
the circuit court to proceed in the case is de-
pendant on this fact, and the investigation
thereof should be full and exhaustive. As a
general rule, there is but little interest taken
in a civil action outside of the immediate
parties to the suit, and the case will be rare
indeed in which either prejudice or local in-
fluence will prevent a fair court and impartial
jury from rendering to a litigant, that which
is justly his due. But few cases can prop-
erly be removed under the prejudice or local
influence clause of. the act of 1887.

Samuel Maxwell.

REMOVAL OF CAUSES ACT.
Enacted August 13, 1888.

Chap. 806.— An act to correct the enrollment of an
met approved March third, eighteen hundred and
eighty-seyen, entitled "An act to amend sections one,
two, and three, and ten of an act to determine the
Jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States,
and to regulate the removal of causes from the State
courts, and for other purposes, approved March third,
eighteen hundred and seventy-five."

Be it enacted by the Senate and House •fBepreeen-
tatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the act approved March third,
eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, entitled "An act
to amend sections one, two, three, and ten of an act to
determine the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the
United States, and to regluate the removal of causes
from State courts, and for other purposes, approved
March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-five," be,
and the same is herehy, amended so as to read as fol-
lows:

**Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepre-
sentatives of the United States ofAmericain Congress
assembled. That the first section of an act entitled 'An
act to determine the jurisdiction of 9ircuit courts of
the United States and to regulate the removal o(
causes from State courts, and for other purposes,' ap-
proved March third, eighteen hundred and seventy-
five, be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read
as follows:

"That the circuit courts of the United States shall
have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts
of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature, at
common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute
exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or
value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the
constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their authority,
or in which controversy the United States are plaintifPs
or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy
between citizens of different States, in which the mat-
ter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and eosts,
the sum or value aforesaid, or a controversy between
dtizens of the same State claiming lands under grants
of different States, or a controversy between citizens
of a State and foreign States, citizens, or sublects, in
which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of in-



terest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid, and shall
have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses
cognizable under the authority of the United States,
except as otherwise provided by law, and concurrent
Jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and
offenses cognizable by thero. But no person shall be
arrested in one district for^trlal in another in any civil
action before a circuit or district court; and no civil
suit shall be brought before either of said court:}
against any person by any original process or proceed-
ing in any other district than that whereof he is an
inhabitant, but where the jurisdiction is founded only
on the fact that the action is between citizens lOf dif-
ferent States, suit shaU be brought only in the district
of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defend-
ant; nor shall any circuit or district court have cogni-
zance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of ex-
change, to recover the contents of any promissory note
or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of
any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable
to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless
such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to
recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer
had been made; and the circuit courts shall also have
appellate Jurisdiction from the district courts under
the regulations and restrictions prescribed by law."

That the second section of said actr be, and the same
is hereby, amended so as to read as follows:

"Sec. 2. That any suit of a civil nature, at law or in
equity, arising under the constitution or laws of the
United States, or treaties made, or which shall be
made, under their authority, of which the circuit
courts of the United States are given original jurisdic-
tion by the preceding section, which may now be
pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in any
State court, may be removed by the defendant or de-
fendants therein to the circuit court of the Unite d
States for the proper district. Any other suit of a
civU nature, at law or in equity, of which the circuit
courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by
the preceding section, and which are now pending, or
which may hereafter be brought, in any State court,
may be removed into the circuit court of the United
States for the proper district by the defendant or de-
fendants therein, being non-residents of that State.
And when in any suit mentioned in this section there
shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens
of different States, and which can be fully determined
as between them, then either one or more of the de-
fendants actually interested in such controversy may
remove said suit into the circuit court of the United
States for the proper district. And where a suit is
now pending, or may be hereafter brought, in any
State court, in which there is a controversy between a
citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a
citizen of another State, any defendant, being such
citizen of another State, may remove such suit into
the circuit court of the United States for the proper
district, at any time before the trial thereof, when it
shall be made to appear to said circuit court that, from
prejudice or local influence, he wiU not be able to ob-
tain justice in such State court, or in any other State
court to which the said defendant may, under the laws
of the State, have the right, on account of such preju-
dice or local influence, to remove said cause: Provided^
That if it furtfier appear that said suit can be fully
and justly determined as to the other defendants in
the State court, vrithout being affected by such preju-
dice or local influence, and that no party to the suit
will be prejudiced by a separation of the parties, said
circuit court may direct the suit to be remanded, so



Digitized by



Google



?3»



114



THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL.



No. 5



far as relates to such other defendants, to the State
court, to be proceeded with therein.

**At any time before the trial of any suit which is
now pending in any circuit court or may hereafter be
entered therein, and which has been removed to said
court from a State court o]\the affidavit of any party
plaintllf that he had reason to believe and did believe
that, from prejudice or local influence, he was unable
to obtain Justice in said State court, the circuit court
shall, on application of the other party, examine into
the truth of said affidavit and the grounds thereof,
and, unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of said
court that said party will not be able to obtain Justice
in such State court, it shall cause the same to be re-
manded thereto.

**Whenever any cause shall be removed from any
State court into any circuit court of the United States,
and the circuit court shall decide that the cause was im-
properly removed, and order the same to be remanded
to the State court from whence it came, such remand
shall be immediately carried into execution, and no
appeal or writ of error from the decision of the circuit
court so remanding such cause shall be allowed."

That section three of said act be, and the same is
hereby, amended so as to read as follows:

**Skc. 8. That whenever any party entitled to remove
any suit mentioned in the next preceding section, ex-
cept in such cases as are provided for in the last clause
of said section, may desire to remove such suit from a
State court to th6 circuit court of the United States,
he may make and file a petition in such suit in such
State court at the time, or aqy time before the de-
fendant is required by the laws of the State or the rule
of the State court in which such suit is brought to an-
swer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the
plaintiff, for the removal of such suit into the circuit
court to be held in the district where such suit is
pending, and shall make and file therewith a bond,
with good and sufficient surety, for his or their enter-
ing in such circuit court, on the first day of its then
next session, a copy of the record in such suit, and for
paying all costs that may be awarded by the said cir-
cuit court if said court shall hold that such suit was
wrongfully or improperly removed thereto, and also
for their appearing and entering special bail in such
suit if special bail was originally requisite therein. It
shall then be the duty of the State court to accept said
petition and bond, and proceed no further m such
suit; and the said copy being entered as aforesaid in
said circuit court of the United States, the cause shall
then proceed in the same manner as if it had been
originally commenced in the said circuit court; and if
in any action commenced in a State court the title of
land be concerned, and the parties are citizens of the
same State, and the matter in dispute exceed the sum
or value of two thousand dollars, exclusive of interest
and costs, the sum or value being made to appear, one
or more of the plaintiffs or defendants, before the
trial, may state to the court, and make affidavit if the
court require it, that he or they claim and shall rely
upon a right or title to the land under a grant from a
State, and produce the original grant, or an exemplifi-
cation of it, except where the loss of public records
shall put it out of his or their powei', and shall move
that any one or more of the adverse party inform the
court whether he or they claim a right or title to the
land under a errant from some other State, the party
or parties so required shall give such information, or
otherwise not be allowed to plead such grant or give
it in evidence upon the trial; and if he or they inform
that he or they do claim under such grant, any one or



more of the party moving for such information may
then, on petition and bond, as hereinbefore mentioned
in this act, remove the cause for trial to the circuit
court of the United States next to be holden in such
district; and any one of either party removing the
cause shall not be allowed to plead or give evidence of
any other title than that by him or them stated as
aforesaid as the ground of his or their claim."

Sec. 2. That whenever any cause pending in any
court of the United States there shall be a receiver or
manager in possession of any property, such receiver
or manager shall manage and operate such property
according to the requirements of the valid laws of the
State in which such property shall be situated, in the
same manner that the owner or possessor thereof
weuld be bound to do if in possession thereof. Any
receiver or manager who shall willfully violate the
provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be
punished by a fine not exceeding three thousand dol-
lars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or
by both said punishments, in the discretion of the
court.

Sec. 8. That every receiver or manager of any prop-
erty appointed by any court of the United States may
be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in
carrying on the business connected with such prop-
erty, without the previous leave of the court in which
such receiver or manager was appointed ; but such
suit shall be subject to the general equity Jurisdiction
of the court in which such receiver or manager was
appointed, so far as the same shall be necessary to the
ends of Justice.

Sec. 4. That all national bankinjg associations estab-
lished under the laws of the United States shall, for
the purposes of all actions by or against them, real,
personal, or mixed, and all suits in equity, be deemed
citizens of the States in which they are respectively
located; and in such cases the circuit and district
courts shall not have Jurisdiction other than such as
they would have in cases between individual citizens
of the same State.

The provisions of this section shall not be held to
affect the Jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States in cases commenced by the United States or by
direction of any officer thereof, or cases for winding
up the affairs of any such bank.

Sec. 5. That nothing in this act shall be held,
deemed, or construed to repeal or affect any Jurisdic-
tion or right mentioned either In sections six hundred
and forty-one, or in six hundred and forty-two, or In
six hundred and forty-three, or in seven hundred and
twenty-two, or in title twenty -four of tjie Revised
Statutes of the United States, or mentioned in section
eight of the act of congress of which this act is an
amendment, or In the act of congress ai)proved March
first, eighteen hundred and seventy -five, entitled "An
act to protect all citizens in tfieir civil and legal rights."

Sec. 6. That the last paragraph of section five of the
act of congress approved March third, eighteen hun-
dred and seventy -five, entitled "An act to determine
the Jurisdiction of circuit courts of the United States
and to regulate the removal of causes from State
courts, and for other purposes," and section six hun-
dred and forty of the Revised Statutes, and all laws
and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this
act, be, and the same are hereby repealed: Provided,
That this act shall not affect the Jurisdiction over or
disposition of any suit removed from the court of any
State, or suit commenced in any court of the United
States, before the passage hereof except as otherwise
expressly provided n his act.



Digitized by



Google



Vol. 28



THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL.



115



Sec. 7. That no person related to any Justice or
Jadge of any court of the United States hy affinity or
oonsanguinlty within the degree of first cousin shall
hereafter be appointed by such court or Judge to, or
employed by such court or judge in, any office or duty
in any court of which such Justice or Judge may be a
member.

Approved, August 18, 1888.



COPY-RIGHT —STATE REPORTS — PREREQUI-
SITES -VIOLATION-DAMAGES.



CALLAGPAN V. MYERS.



VfUied SUU€$ Suprevie Court, December 17, 1888.

Copy-right — Law Beports. — The reporter of a
volume o*f law reports, although he be a public officer,
appointed by the authority of the government which
creates the court of which he is the reporter, can ob-
tain a copy-right for it as an author, in the absence of
a prohibitory statute, and such copy-right will cover
the parts of the work of which he is the author,
namely, the head-notes, and the statement of facts and
the arguments of counsel, although he has no exclu-
sive right in the Judicial opinions published. The
question of salary of the reporter is immaterial.

Bill in equity, to perpetually enjoin defendants
from publisliing or eelling certain Illinois Reports,
upon which complainant claims a copy-right, also
for a decree tbat all so published by defendants
be forfeited to plaintiff, and that they be deliv-
ered to him, and for an account of all publjished
and sold, and for a decree for damages. The cir-
cuit court rendered a decree in favor of plaintiff
from which defendants appealed.

Opinion ^ by Mr. Justice Blatchford :
********

The volumes of law reports of which the plaint-
iff claims a copy-ri^ht are in the usual form of
such works. Each volume consists of a title page,
of a statement of the entry of copy-ri/^ht, of a list
of the judges composing the court, of a table of



Online LibraryAugustus John Cuthbert HareThe Central law journal, Volume 28 → online text (page 31 of 151)